I don't understand Wizard

[MaxPen]

Not interested.

And btw, I know you are really pissed that I posted the "willing to forgive and forget" private comment, very similarly to how Mike is pissed that I posted some private things that he said that contradict what he said publicly. And while that isn't a nice thing to do and something I don't do lightly, the bigger issue is your dishonesty. You lied! You forced me to expose your lie. And now judging from this reply, you are even madder at me because you lied.

Frankly I think you did the same thing with the "my brother is gay thing" and that's why you have ignored that question. I was bitching about you outing me to this forum and you gave me a "my brother is gay" line, just like a racist would say "hey I have black friends". But that is really irrelevant.

The point is you lied and were dishonest. Forced me to prove you were dishonest. And then get mad at me.

I already explained this in a previous post. Let's look at what I said again.

I'm willing to forgive and forget. I didn't follow it up with anything or say, I forgive you and forget. I waited to hear what your response was and see how things went. Had you come back with something besides what you had said then we possibly could have worked something out but you didn't. You went on and kept trying to defend yourself and blame others. It was the same s*** you been going on about over and over forever and blaming others for your misfortunes on the forums. But only you could misconstrue something like that as a lie. You're the one trying to falsely discredit me claiming I'm a liar. You are desperately grasping at straws in order to justify exposing PM'S. I doubt I would ever expose one of your PMS no matter what you said.

Axelwolf, with the things you have said in as uncertain terms as you could (1 inch print), you were never willing or going to "forgive and forget". And that is fine. No one says you have to forgive and forget. I didn't ask you to forgive and forget, did I. You threw that out there. BUT, let's not pretend you were ever going to do that or be able to do that. You would have continued to throw up little reminders, whenever it suited your needs...a month from now, 6 months from now, completely different discussion....boom you would get you jab in and twist it. That is just how you are. If you need proof. Look no further than the fake death thing. You weren't even on that forum. You certainly don't no all the details, because I haven't even shared all the details. You just see an opportunity to use that to discredit me at various times, and do so and HAVE done so about 6 different times now.

I am quite sure you are a top AP, knowledgeable beyond my dreams and have years of success to prove it. I am quite sure your friends and teammates think you are a great person. You have demonstrated how loyal you are to your friends whether they are right or wrong. But on these forums, and I am only familiar with you here GF before this, and WoV, you have also quite clearly shown a side that bullies, manipulates and uses people, especially people outside your immediate circle.

Again, this really goes back to one thing. Michael Shackleford. Even though you know he was wrong, the second I said something negative about him, an agenda was born to discredit and undermine me. I have always felt that, I mean literally felt that in all your little jabs, right up to the bigger ones as time went on.

You and I are way past any point of moving forward. I am your sworn enemy because I dared question and challenge Mike about the situation, that you know was wrong. And I don't trust you because I know you have had an agenda to discredit me for quite a while now, to take me down because of things I say about Mike.

Look you and others....most others....maybe every single person, may think it is long past time that I let this go. But you don't get to make that decision. You don't know how much Mike hurt me that day and even more so in the months that followed with his cover-up and lying and saying things to me that he couldn't bring himself to say publicly.

I had great respect for Mike, I mean really great admiration. Here is a guy, kind of a nerdy, geeky (not meant disparagingly), conservative (meaning safe, not political) type guy with a nice safe cushy GovT job and he gave that up to chase his dream. He took a chance. So happens he got lucky with the overpaid sale of his forum, but he took a chance. These kind of guys never take a chance...they play it safe and straight, work their Govt job for 30 years and retire. So I admired the hell of out Mike when I learned of his story and that is why I chose to participate at WoV. And why I tried very hard to contribute in a positive manner, mostly on topic of Gambling/AP, staying clear of most of the garbage, that I still don't know why he ever allowed. I guess he likes that kind of shit....I mean he created a whole second forum just for that. But that is beside the point.

At WoV I worked hard to contribute positively. It was the first forum I like the members and forum since BJinfo had closed. No offense to the members at Norms forum or the management at BJ21. Both had half of what I was looking for. At WoV, I felt comfortable, shared my experiences, good and bad, talked shop and a few other topics. And while I have always had a few haters on some level because I guess I rub some people the wrong way (yeah gay joke opportunity), I felt pretty liked and respected at WoV, including by Mike who I admired. That is why I agreed to do that 20 question interview that I was skeptical about. Sure I share a lot of stuff, experiences and what not, but I always do so on my terms. I decide what I want to share. I had a feeling that interview would probably lead me towards things I probably wouldn't have gone to.

And while I was participating at WOV, enjoying it, enjoying participating with members I liked and respected and an owner I liked respected and trusted, things at Norm's forum were crashing and burning. I didn't really care that much. I knew how it would end. Had seen Norms feuds before. Didn't like him. Didn't trust him. Didn't respect him. I only helped him start his forum because we as a group were out of options when BJinfo shut down (Before I was aware of WoV). If I had know about WoV in 2011, there wouldn't even be a Norm's forum (BJTF) or any of this. But anyway.

And yeah, one extra side benefit of WoV, was that there was no chance of Norm. While he was technically a member, he hadn't participated in over 5 years and what's worse...He had publicly stated that he didn't participate at WoV because he didn't trust Michael Shackleford because of his past association with Venetian. So there was no chance of Norm....or so I thought.

So when Norm showed up, bringing an outside feud, and Mike kissed his ass, fawned all over him and eventually sided with him in this feud over a member of his own forum, a member that Mike said was very respected, liked and made many positive contributions, I was crushed. I really was. And still am. Crushed isn't nearly a strong enough word. It's more than losing the ability to participate at WoV, where I felt comfortable, like the membership, liked Mike. It was the betrayal by someone I greatly admired and respected. And the betrayal in the aftermath was even worse.

I mean when Mike said privately to me, "I owed Norm a favor, he had done some math work for me, so when he asked for a favor I couldn't say no", I was stunned. I mean completely stunned and crushed.

And while my opinion of Mike had gone south, I still saw hope that he was the decent person I had so much respect for because our private conversations showed how uncomfortable he was with what he had done. He would say things like "I am trying to find a way to bring you back".

I know you guys are going to scream blood murderabout sharing PM's but read these few lines from Mike after I was banned.

"I will be sorry to see you go. If I had the choice between you and Norm as members, I would take you any day.

In my defense, I have considered Norm a friend for years before his first post. He has helped me out several times when I needed some difficult blackjack math confirmed and he has never asked for anything in return. So, when he, after all the favors he has done for me, asked for one in return, I had a hard time saying "no."

So I concede that working out that truce and then enforcing it was done out of some favoritism towards Norm.

After I did suspend Norm, he wrote me to saying that we're no longer on speaking terms".

I mean Mike being your friend or not....WTF?!?

"IF he had a choice between me and Norm he would take me any day" That is exactly the choice he had and he did the opposite!

"I concede that working out the truce and then enforcing it was done out of favoritism towards Norm". Again....WTF?!? How can I not feel the way I do, angry, betrayed by someone I had great respect for?

And I don't even want to get into that last line about Norm threatening to stop speaking to Mike, holding their friendship over his head. I mean you guys talk about me threatening Mike....Jesus H Christ!

So Axelwolf or anyone else, you may feel I have carried this way to far...but you don't get to tell me how I should feel and when I should stop feeling that way. This was big to me, on many level, because it was someone I liked and had great respect for. And because it was such cowardly thing to do. He allowed himself to be bullied by Norm.....Knows he was wrong.....is even pretty damn uncomfortable with it, but just doesn't have the balls to fix it. And probably worst of all now, is too worried what people will think.

So Axelwolf, I am going to continue to keep my promise to Mike....not threat, but promise. And you can continue you agenda to protect Mike by trying to discredit me. But don't talk to me about "forgiving and forgetting" We are way past that.

#Where'sNORM?

If I were in your shoes I'd hope someone would encourage me to take a break from forums. At least until the time I could not recall 1/2 of that stuff so quickly.

[redietz]

I remember this feeling...watching reruns of Gomer Pyle and trying to figure out: Who's really dumber? Gomer or the Sarge?

[kewlJ]

And now heading back to work. Thanks for the entertainment and helping me fill some medical leave, downtime the past few days gang.

[jbjb]

If I ever have to "work" to AP, I'm quitting AP.

[kewlJ]

If I ever have to "work" to AP, I'm quitting AP.

I don't know what you are trying to say? That you enjoy what yo do? That is great. It really is.

But being a successful long-term AP takes work. And more advanced plays/techniques don't change that...if anything it works the other way because of scouting.

You know jbjb, you have some Grosjean in you (definitely a gay joke opportunity there) in that you like to remind or impress people that you are doing more advanced stuff.

Is this need (trait) and insecurity an AP thing?

[jbjb]

If I ever have to "work" to AP, I'm quitting AP.

I don't know what you are trying to say? That you enjoy what yo do? That is great. It really is.

But being a successful long-term AP takes work. And more advanced plays/techniques don't chance that...if anything it works the other way because of scouting.

You know jbjb, you have some Grosjean in you (definitely a gay joke opportunity there) in that you like to remind or impress people that you are doing more advanced stuff.

Is this need (trait) and insecurity an AP thing?

Dont put words in my mouth. Card counting is work! It's mentally fatiguing. What I do isn't. Nothing wrong with what you do. I'd just never do it again.

[kewlJ]

I gotta go....but that's not possible. I mean I guess if you are sitting in your recliner in your bathrobe and playing with an advantage online with a GUARANTEE that you will get paid...its not work.

Everything else has some element of work, even if it is travel, scouting or taking precautions to remain undetected.

[Rob.Singer]

It's nearly unbelievable the way kew sees internet forum banter as the most important part of his life. He's HURT....SADDENED....STUNNED by what others say? What is he--a mental moron? That right there proves he has no real friends and never has. What would be his adjectives to describe THEM once it were THEY would disagreed with him or had a problem with his weasel-like threats?

#NOLIFEAWAYFROMTHEWEB

[BoSox]

It's nearly unbelievable the way kew sees internet forum banter as the most important part of his life. He's HURT....SADDENED....STUNNED by what others say? What is he--a mental moron? That right there proves he has no real friends and never has. What would be his adjectives to describe THEM once it were THEY would disagreed with him or had a problem with his weasel-like threats?

#NOLIFEAWAYFROMTHEWEB

Boy, you should talk Rob. What about you, are you not hurt, saddened, and stunned that the gambling with an edge show wants no part of you as a guest? More than likely because of your shady history. What about that obsession you have about you thinking that you will finally give up the internet boards only after you establish a legacy for yourself? Why do you have so many insecurities that you must be highly remembered by the gaming community for leaving a mark? Little can change the fact that many will always remember you for being a total embarrassment, as well as a racist.

[redietz]

It's nearly unbelievable the way kew sees internet forum banter as the most important part of his life. He's HURT....SADDENED....STUNNED by what others say? What is he--a mental moron? That right there proves he has no real friends and never has. What would be his adjectives to describe THEM once it were THEY would disagreed with him or had a problem with his weasel-like threats?

#NOLIFEAWAYFROMTHEWEB

Boy, you should talk Rob. What about you, are you not hurt, saddened, and stunned that the gambling with an edge show wants no part of you as a guest? More than likely because of your shady history. What about that obsession you have about you thinking that you will finally give up the internet boards only after you establish a legacy for yourself? Why do you have so many insecurities that you must be highly remembered by the gaming community for leaving a mark? Little can change the fact that many will always remember you for being a total embarrassment, as well as a racist.

You know, I was thinking the other day about if I stumbled upon some offshore that -- if you bet teams that were underdogs by a certain amount of points at certain times of the day -- you got paid +110 if you won and had to pay -100 if you lost. And if I bet and bet and bet and made three million over a decade, would that be something I'd crow about? And then I thought about the process of "discovering" the sequence by testing because I just knew, that out there somewhere, there would be an offshore glitch of some kind. And then I thought about presenting that "find' as a testament to my know how and gumption and keen insights.

And then I laughed.

[mickeycrimm]

Something has me puzzled about Shack's returning a favor to Wattemberger. Was Shack banning KJ a reciprocal favor to Wattemberger? Wattemberger did some math for Shack then down the line asked Shack to do him a favor, ban KJ. Was publicly humiliating a member of good standing by banning him and placing him on the "Wall of Shame" a reciprocal favor? Was the math work that Wattemberger did worth that much, publicly embarrassing a WoV member? Where would Shack draw the line? What if Qfit had asked Mike to put together a posse and rough KJ up? Shack would have certainly drawn the line there and said no.

But Shack must include publicly humiliating a long time member on his list of favors that he could return to Qfit in exchange for Qfit doing some math work for him. Because that's exactly what he did. A person of Shack's public standing must consider ethics in everything he does or he sets himself up for some heavy public criticism and a tarnished reputation.

At the very least what Shack did was unethical.

[kewlJ]

You know, I was thinking the other day about if I stumbled upon some offshore that -- if you bet teams that were underdogs by a certain amount of points at certain times of the day -- you got paid +110 if you won and had to pay -100 if you lost. And if I bet and bet and bet and made three million over a decade, would that be something I'd crow about? And then I thought about the process of "discovering" the sequence by testing because I just knew, that out there somewhere, there would be an offshore glitch of some kind. And then I thought about presenting that "find' as a testament to my know how and gumption and keen insights.

And then I laughed.

I give you credit for trying Redietz, but I don't see this as a very good example/comparison. What you cited would actually be a legit advantage play. Anyone that find that and plays it good for them. in previous years didn't South Point offer a half juice day, like on Wednesday? Getting off topic (on your topic, off the Singer double up bug topic of your post), but if you really had reason to believe the line was going to shift, bet it early in the week at the half juice rate to minimize your risk, no?

So back to the singer "glitch". A legit advantage play meets 2 requirements in my mind. 1.) it is legal. And 2.) it is within the rules of the game. For #2, we are talking rules, not casino policy. This is a distinction opponents often make about card counting....it violates casino "policy". That means nothing. Casinos have policy that they don't want anyone to win!

So back to #1. 6 months ago or whenever Singer first made this claim, I was the only one on this board arguing that this play is not legal. It is a crime. I was disappointed that all of my fellow AP's argued against me, calling this legal, when it clearly isn't. The criteria for whether a play is legal is not whether someone got a way with it as Singer claims, or even were charged with some wrong doing as Kane/Nestor were, but beat the case. That is not what makes something legal or a crime or not. OJ Simpson committed the crime of murder. He beat that rap. He still committed murder and a crime.

Now back when I was the only one arguing that this was a crime, I wish I had found that 2013 thread recently dug up and linked to, from this very site. In that thread Dan Druff actually hits the nail right on the head. The case was lost because they were charged with some kind of internet crime....I forget the terminology….instead of stealing, instead of theft.

And Rob himself, back in 2013, in no uncertain terms several times when talking about the Kane/Nester case described it as a crime. He repeatedly said they were entitled to the smaller win that they actually played, not the larger amount that they were able to manipulate the machine to pay. One of the very few instances Singer was 100% right. And that is because he hadn't stolen this claim/story as his own back then and was still able to look through truthful eyes.


I mean this is what I have been arguing about the truth. The truth is the truth....period! It doesn't change because you want it to change. And this "play" as described is stealing or theft. And that doesn't change because you like the idea of it, or the casino deserves to be stolen from, or this person or that person, normally a reasonable upstanding person, would have done the same thing given the opportunity. Hell, I can't say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't have done the play. Still a crime! Still illegal.

[kewlJ]

Something has me puzzled about Shack's returning a favor to Wattemberger. Was Shack banning KJ a reciprocal favor to Wattemberger? Wattemberger did some math for Shack then down the line asked Shack to do him a favor, ban KJ. Was publicly humiliating a member of good standing by banning him and placing him on the "Wall of Shame" a reciprocal favor? Was the math work that Wattemberger did worth that much, publicly embarrassing a WoV member? Where would Shack draw the line? What if Qfit had asked Mike to put together a posse and rough KJ up? Shack would have certainly drawn the line there and said no.

But Shack must include publicly humiliating a long time member on his list of favors that he could return to Qfit in exchange for Qfit doing some math work for him. Because that's exactly what he did. A person of Shack's public standing must consider ethics in everything he does or he sets himself up for some heavy public criticism and a tarnished reputation.

At the very least what Shack did was unethical.

Now THERE is the Mickeycrimm, I like so much!

You ask a lot of questions only Mike can answer and didn't and won't. Actually to his credit, he did answer privately to me. but would not dare say so publicly. That is why I felt 'forced" to reveal some of his private statements.

I personally think this was about much more than a favor owed. Just speculation but that part where Mike and I had an agreement. An agreement he asked me to write and when I did, he said it seemed very fair. And then at the last second he had to get Norm's approval? That is bizarre!

The second bizarre thing to me is if you fast forward to present day. Wattenberger now gone from the forum, absolutely proves he had no intention of anything other than getting me banned. Hindsight is a powerful tool. And knowing that now, Mike still seems afraid of Wattenberger. Seems afraid when he should be angry at him for what is now obvious that he used and manipulated Mike, with no other intention. And that says to me, maybe it is about something much more than owing a favor. Yeah, I am talking like something hanging over his head. Again speculation. But the pieces just don't fit the way they are.

[BoSox]

Something has me puzzled about Shack's returning a favor to Wattemberger.


mickeycrimm, you are not the only one who is puzzled.



Was Shack banning KJ a reciprocal favor to Wattemberger?


No way!


Wattemberger did some math for Shack then down the line asked Shack to do him a favor, ban KJ. Was publicly humiliating a member of good standing by banning him and placing him on the "Wall of Shame" a reciprocal favor?


Absolutely not!


Was the math work that Wattemberger did worth that much, publicly embarrassing a WoV member?


No, but, there could be much more to the story.


Where would Shack draw the line?


Depends on the individual and what kind of pickle he was in.


What if Qfit had asked Mike to put together a posse and rough KJ up? Shack would have certainly drawn the line there and said no.


Again depends on the individual and what kind of pickle he was in.



But Shack must include publicly humiliating a long time member on his list of favors that he could return to Qfit in exchange for Qfit doing some math work for him. Because that's exactly what he did. A person of Shack's public standing must consider ethics in everything he does or he sets himself up for some heavy public criticism and a tarnished reputation.

At the very least what Shack did was unethical.


I do not know what is true and what is not, but, if any of that is in fact true, it does not say much for the two individuals involved.

[kewlJ]

The "wall of Shame" is an interesting topic. One I know irks mickeycrimm.

I don't participate in forums outside this community. But I would think a forum, whatever the topic, gambling related, collecting this or that, cars, stamp collecting, whatever.....I mean who would have a wall of shame like that? In this day and age, you probably are going to encounter some trolls. You want to remove them from your community and forum. And there inevitably has to be some rules. And that means rules will be broken. Maybe there will be a warning system for breaking the rules and that might even include a suspension, for multiple offenses. But after that, the person is a troll, and you remove them.

But I have never seen or heard of a forum that has the need to publicly "shame" such behavior and celebrates suspensions bannings and that is what they do...bate each other into breaking the rules and then celebrate and laugh like 3rd graders when the person is sent to the corner or expelled from school. THAT is the mentality of WoV and it starts with Mike. Everything is 3rd grade and everything is about putting others down. "Shaming" It was Mike who used this word and that is the mentality of a really small person.

[BoSox]

KewlJ wrote:


Now THERE is the Mickeycrimm, I like so much!

You ask a lot of questions only Mike can answer and didn't and won't. Actually to his credit, he did answer privately to me. but would not dare say so publicly. That is why I felt 'forced" to reveal some of his private statements.


If in fact Mike's hands were really tied, the true story was not about some math research.

[kewlJ]

If in fact Mike's hands were really tied, the true story was not about some math research.

I don't think we are going to get the true story now. I wish we could.....I really wish we could. Even if Mike were to say something like, there is no way I can consider allowing Kewlj back after the things he has said, but here is what really happened.... I could live with that and I would gain some respect for him. I think everyone would.

There is something sort of related that I often wonder about. I have posted private conversations with Mike, quotes, back on gambling forums even screenshot so there was no confusion about me taking something out of context. And I don't believe there is anyone, even my haters and/or Mike's friends and supporters that believes the things I posted are made up or some how falsified. They make not like that I posted private conversations, but I think everyone knows they are true.

So what I wonder is why Mike told me the truth, when he couldn't publicly? It seems like he really wanted me to know the truth even if he couldn't be truthful publicly. I mean "I will admit the truce was done with some favoritism to Norm".

"Norm repeatedly contacted me demanding that I ban you".

How about this one: "Second, I know this whole thing was handled rather poorly but reversing myself is only going to cause Norm to come after me instead of you".

Why would he say these things to me? Almost seems like he wanted the truth revealed. umm...your welcome Mike.

and btw...with all the shit I take from my supposed threat to mike that I would continue to bring this up, this threat from Norm that he would come after Mike is ok?

[Rob.Singer]

It's nearly unbelievable the way kew sees internet forum banter as the most important part of his life. He's HURT....SADDENED....STUNNED by what others say? What is he--a mental moron? That right there proves he has no real friends and never has. What would be his adjectives to describe THEM once it were THEY would disagreed with him or had a problem with his weasel-like threats?

#NOLIFEAWAYFROMTHEWEB

Boy, you should talk Rob. What about you, are you not hurt, saddened, and stunned that the gambling with an edge show wants no part of you as a guest? More than likely because of your shady history. What about that obsession you have about you thinking that you will finally give up the internet boards only after you establish a legacy for yourself? Why do you have so many insecurities that you must be highly remembered by the gaming community for leaving a mark? Little can change the fact that many will always remember you for being a total embarrassment, as well as a racist.

You're more of an idiot than your posts project.

Exactly when and where have I ever proclaimed to be in a "hury" status over being rejected for an interview by Dancer?

Now compare that to this internet twit kew. He's so "sensitive" that if someone tells him he's no longer wanted on a forum, he spends YEARS whining and pining--not exactly man-of-the-year stuff.

[mickeycrimm]

You know, I was thinking the other day about if I stumbled upon some offshore that -- if you bet teams that were underdogs by a certain amount of points at certain times of the day -- you got paid +110 if you won and had to pay -100 if you lost. And if I bet and bet and bet and made three million over a decade, would that be something I'd crow about? And then I thought about the process of "discovering" the sequence by testing because I just knew, that out there somewhere, there would be an offshore glitch of some kind. And then I thought about presenting that "find' as a testament to my know how and gumption and keen insights.

And then I laughed.

I give you credit for trying Redietz, but I don't see this as a very good example/comparison. What you cited would actually be a legit advantage play. Anyone that find that and plays it good for them. in previous years didn't South Point offer a half juice day, like on Wednesday? Getting off topic (on your topic, off the Singer double up bug topic of your post), but if you really had reason to believe the line was going to shift, bet it early in the week at the half juice rate to minimize your risk, no?

So back to the singer "glitch". A legit advantage play meets 2 requirements in my mind. 1.) it is legal. And 2.) it is within the rules of the game. For #2, we are talking rules, not casino policy. This is a distinction opponents often make about card counting....it violates casino "policy". That means nothing. Casinos have policy that they don't want anyone to win!

So back to #1. 6 months ago or whenever Singer first made this claim, I was the only one on this board arguing that this play is not legal. It is a crime. I was disappointed that all of my fellow AP's argued against me, calling this legal, when it clearly isn't. The criteria for whether a play is legal is not whether someone got a way with it as Singer claims, or even were charged with some wrong doing as Kane/Nestor were, but beat the case. That is not what makes something legal or a crime or not. OJ Simpson committed the crime of murder. He beat that rap. He still committed murder and a crime.

Now back when I was the only one arguing that this was a crime, I wish I had found that 2013 thread recently dug up and linked to, from this very site. In that thread Dan Druff actually hits the nail right on the head. The case was lost because they were charged with some kind of internet crime....I forget the terminology….instead of stealing, instead of theft.

And Rob himself, back in 2013, in no uncertain terms several times when talking about the Kane/Nester case described it as a crime. He repeatedly said they were entitled to the smaller win that they actually played, not the larger amount that they were able to manipulate the machine to pay. One of the very few instances Singer was 100% right. And that is because he hadn't stolen this claim/story as his own back then and was still able to look through truthful eyes.


I mean this is what I have been arguing about the truth. The truth is the truth....period! It doesn't change because you want it to change. And this "play" as described is stealing or theft. And that doesn't change because you like the idea of it, or the casino deserves to be stolen from, or this person or that person, normally a reasonable upstanding person, would have done the same thing given the opportunity. Hell, I can't say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't have done the play. Still a crime! Still illegal.

O.J. was found not guilty by a jury. That's how he beat the rap. Kane & Nestor didn't "beat the rap." The prosecution finally gave up on the case when they seen they most likely couldn't get a conviction.

The State of Nevada was free to charge them both with theft but didn't. With all their resources, and a long history of making examples out of slot cheats, why were Kane & Nestor not charged? There is only one answer. Kane and Nestor were pushing buttons they were legally entitled to push and the machine did only what it was programmed to do. It's obvious the State knew the case would be to weak to get convictions.

[Rob.Singer]

No matter how many time you repeat that to these jealous haters, and no matter how many times they read it on their own, they will never accept the truth. Is there any world where you can imagine kew not choosing to reside in conflict and chaos over sensibility, and any world where you can imagine redietz not trying to re-write history in such a way that it wouldn't offend the mental midget mind of vegas_lover?